Minolta AF 100-300mm F4.5-5.6 APO A-mount lens reviews
 derekw#6559 date: Dec-9-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 75-300 New Sigma 70-300 Apo Macro |
| price paid: | L199 |
| positive: | Aharpness Colour Weight |
| negative: | None |
| comment: | For the money, one of the best lenses you can get covering this range |
; 12MP| Shearwater#6319 date: Nov-3-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 70-400 G Bigma Tamron 28-75 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Extremely light and compact. |
| negative: | It is reasonably sharp but not as good as either the Tamron or Sony G. |
| comment: | I carry this lens around when I don't want to lug the Sony 70-400. |
| ianb#5787 date: Jul-30-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Surprisingly Good lens on A700 Solid build Not too heavy Sharp temtped to give it 5.0 Good Bokeh |
| negative: | Slow Focus & hunts a bit if trying to focus on a smaller object |
| comment: | Originally bought with Minolta 700si Film Camera. Transferred to Minolta 5D where the increase in zoom range (effective 150-450mm) gave some pretty good results on clear bright days. Putting this lens on the A700 has really brought out the best in this lens. Pictures are clear and sharp and some of edge fringing appears to have been reduced. If you can find one of these second hand grab it quick. It stands up against some of the best - for an old lens. |
| Derek#5778 date: Jul-29-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 75-300 New Minolta 100-300 f4.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Sharp at 300 Colour No distortion No PF Good bokeh Lightweight |
| negative: | None |
| comment: | Good replacement for 'beercan' if you need the extra reach |
| OisinP#5496 date: Jun-2-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 70-210 f4 100-200 f4.5 |
| price paid: | 160 GBP |
| positive: | Good colour Decently sharp for the price Light and compact Close focussing |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | I like this very much. Not the worlds sharpest (hand held) at 300 nor the fastest focussing on the 5D and the Max F4.5 doesn't extend beyond about 110mm but it is light and easy to carry. If you are all about IQ then there are some very expensive options available but this lens at this price fits my bill perfectly. |
| dsoulsticec#5426 date: May-21-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 1 color: 1 build: 1 distortion: 2 flare control: 1 overall: 1.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 100mm Macro F2.8 Minolta 28-135mm F4.0-4.5 XX's Crossed Minolta 135mm F2.8 Minolta 70-210mm F4.0 Minolta 50mm F1.7 Minolta 100-200mm F4.5 Minolta 35-105mm F3.5-4.5 Minolta 28-85mm F3.5-4.5 Minolta 35-70mm F4.0 Sigma 35-135mm 3.5-4.5 Minolta 100-300mm APO F4.5-5.6 Sony 18-70mm F3.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | 225 USD (used) |
| positive: | missing |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | I may have had a bad copy of this lens, but it was terrible - easily the worst piece of glass I've come across. |
| Frenske#5276 date: Apr-22-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 70-300mm DG APO (red ring) |
| price paid: | 150GBP |
| positive: | A light weight lens Compact Sharp at shorter focal lengths |
| negative: | Not sharp at longer focal lengths |
| comment: | A nice little lens. It is slightly better in IQ than the Sigma 70-300mm DG APO (red ring). Particularly the color production of the 100-300mm APO is better, but it is still not up to level of the beercan family. It is also smaller and feels like it is better built than the Sigma; even though it is made of plastic it feels sturdy. Both lenses don't perform stellar at longer focal lengths, which is unfortunately since amateurs are looking into these lenses for the longer focal lengths and most will care less about the 70-150mm range. At the end this is a nice lens for traveling and because of the size and weight and color production it has the upperhand compared to bulky Sigma 70-300mm. |
| nitrosyl#5158 date: Apr-3-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | - Minolta 70-210mm f/4 (Beercan) - Sony 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 SSM G - Sony 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | 240 USD (used exc) |
| positive: | - Small & Light - Reasonably Priced - Useful Range - Focus hold button |
| negative: | - Mediocre Build - Softness @ Wide Open - AF Speed - No longer in production |
| comment: | This lens and the famous beercan are both cheap alternatives to the much more expensive Sony 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G lens. It is not as sharp wide open as the G, neither does it focus as fast. It also has a very plastic build, but that's what makes it light. The 300mm end comes handy time to time, and that should be the primary reason if you pick a Minolta 100-300mm APO over a beercan. Bottom line: go for the new Sony G if your budget allows it, otherwise either the 100-300mm APO or a beercan will make an economical solution. |
| DonSergio#4849 date: Feb-12-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | - Beercan - 70-300G - 70-200G - 85za - 135za - 200G |
| price paid: | 250 USD (used) |
| positive: | + small weight and size + 450mm on APS-C + resonable fast AF + good price |
| negative: | - nor sharp wide open. - Hunts in low light. |
| comment: | Very good telezoom for travel, lightweight and compact. resonable sharp stopped down (but not wide open). Fast AF and good IQ (in good light conditions). I use this lens in my travel on A100 with 24-105 and 50mm primes. Ultimate travel complect IMHO. In lowlight conditions AF hunts. |
| hassenpheffer#4756 date: Jan-28-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 24-235mm Tamron 55-200mm Sigma 70-300 APO |
| price paid: | 270 USD |
| positive: | -light and compact -good zoom range -sharp and good flare control -excellent cost/ performance value |
| negative: | for it's price, size and weight, I have nothing negative to say about this lens. Something of this price and quality in a 70-300 would be even better. |
| comment: | I wanted a lens with decent telephoto capability in a small and light compact package for hiking and backpacking. This particular lens fits the bill very well with excellent performance even at 300mm F6.3, so for wildlife it's also a decent lens; albeit a bit slow for that, depending upon what type of quarry you are after. all round a nice sharp lens that's easy to keep on the camera body all day. |
| tthomsen#4453 date: Nov-29-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron AF70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro Tamron AF70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 |
| price paid: | 190 EUR (used) |
| positive: | Very light and compact, good for traveling Practically no chromatic aberration or purple fringing |
| negative: | Lack of sharpness Flimsy lens hood |
| comment: | I bought my copy in a used-camera equipment store and compared it with two other copies of the same lens. I picked the sharpest of the three and went home with it. After comparing it with my Tamron AF70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2, I came to the following conclusion: - The Tamron is noticeably sharper in the corners - The Minolta shows practically no sign of chromatic aberration or purple fringing (which the Tamron does quite noticeably) So, both lenses have noticeable flaws. I do not know, if this was just bad luck or if this is characteristic for those lenses. I ended up buying the significantly more expensive Tamron AF70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro with a Kenko 1.4x Teleplus Pro 300, keep the other Tamron for traveling (because of its significantly smaller size and weight) and sold the Minolta. |
| borjomi#4363 date: Nov-12-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 70-210/4 beercan Minolta 75-300 new Minolta 85/1.4G MC APO Telezenirar 135/2.8 (M42) Minolta 200/2.8 HS APO G |
| price paid: | 200 EUR like new |
| positive: | Good color Low CA at wide end Compact size Very light weight Focus hold button Effective hood |
| negative: | Slow AF No focusing distance limiter CA at long end Bad bokeh Double size when zooming |
| comment: | Good travel zoom for my film camera Dynax 7. On digital Sony A100 focus hunts to much at long end. Sharpness is not good enough for small birds. I had replace this lens to 200/2.8 HS APO G + 2x TC. |
| fute77#4286 date: Oct-25-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | beercan |
| price paid: | cheap |
| positive: | light fast AF sharp enough at FO |
| negative: | start at 4.5 |
| comment: | a nice lens to travel light excellent for outdoor (sunny weather) I change it because I also own a Tokina 80-200/2.8 and a Tokina 300/4 |
| pashka20#4058 date: Sep-6-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 2 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Beercan minolta 28-85 f/3.5-4.5 minolta kit minolta 28 f/2 tamron 90 f/2.8 minolta 50 f/1.7 several mf lenses |
| price paid: | 260 used |
| positive: | Small, convenient range. |
| negative: | Not that sharp wide open at 300mm Very poor flare control Extends when camera points down |
| comment: | I had high hopes for this lens due to positive reviews here. I was very disappointed when it came to reality. The lens I had was not as sharp as beercan I own, with not greatest resolution in 300 range wide open. It has to be stopped down to f8 to be any good and it makes it usable only in good lightning. The other flaw that I found was poor flare control. In fact, this was the worst of all my lenses. The hood didn't help much. Flare control was, probably, the reason why I sold it shortly after I bought. Sorry for the bad review. I only tried to pinpoint negative features of the lens. |
| Wedge#4030 date: Sep-2-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tammy 200-400 F5.6 Minolta RS 50 F1.7 Minolta 35-70 F4 Konica Minolta 17-35 F2.8-4. Minolta 135 F2.8. Minolta AF 70-210 F4 APO Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX APO IF |
| price paid: | 550 AUD |
| positive: | Sharp Size Great Colours Great Build |
| negative: | Focus Hold a little small Not so sharp at 300mm |
| comment: | Sharp at Min Aperture throughout the range upto around 250mm. if you can get this lens at a good price get it! Quick focusing. |
| kusa#3431 date: Apr-4-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | - Sigma - 70-300 F4-5.6 DG APO Macro - Tamron 90 F2.8 SP macro |
| price paid: | 220 € (used) |
| positive: | - light and small - good picture quality on the entire range |
| negative: | - not very fast (f4.5 is only until ~120mm) - zoom creep |
| comment: | The AF speed is OK, some hunts with my 7D though. The sharpness is still good on the longer end of the range unlike many competitors. I gave build a 3 for the annoyinh zoom creeping problem. A very good and small telezoom that always finds a place in your bag. |
| alanfrombangor#3332 date: Mar-3-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | 70-200 F4 200 2.8 HS G |
| price paid: | around Ł140 used |
| positive: | Light weight Price |
| negative: | Slow Not especially sharp |
| comment: | I was a little disappointed with this lens, sharpness was below my expectations and my copy (now sold) only went out to 280mm. Reasonable value for money at current used prices. |
| Fecuska#2591 date: Jul-31-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | - Minolta 2.8/100 D macro - Tamron 3.5/180 macro - Beercan |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | - small & lightweight - nice colors - 55mm filter size, like most of my lenses |
| negative: | - a little bit soft |
| comment: | The problems is that my eyes are adjusted to macro lenses (50mm, 100mm, 180mm, see above), and all other lenses seem to be soft compared to these guys... Anyway, previously i had a beercan that produced cca the same quality as the 100-300 APO, but had never fitted into my bag, so it was spending its time mainly at home... Regarding the maximum apertures, the 100-300 is worse, but its reach is better. In a nutshell, regarding the tradeoffs i think it is a correct lens for tourist and walkaround purposes - i like it... |
| keith_h#2441 date: Jun-13-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 75-300 |
| price paid: | 270 usd (sh) |
| positive: | Better CA performance compared to 75-300. Compact, light. Nice and sharp from f8. Fast focus and focus hold button |
| negative: | Needs a lot of light to take decent shots at the long end. |
| comment: | I mostly use for sports shooting and bought this to replace my 75-300 which suffers badly from CA. I get good results in strong light and struggle to make a decent picture when the weather is overcast. I find f8 at least is required to acquire a sharp image which at the long end means this lens is not fast enough for less than ideal light. Difficult to beat at the price though. |
| camfan#2374 date: May-28-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | $200 |
| positive: | Lightweight Wonderful color CA well controlled |
| negative: | A little soft at 250-300mm Barrel extends when tilted |
| comment: | A great tele-zoom lens especially for travelling. I really like its color and bokeh, full of Minolta characteristics. The build quality is good although the lens barrel extends when tilted. The sharpness is good while a little soft at the tele-end. I used to combine it with my 24-105 for travel. But recently I plan to buy CZ16-80 to replace my 24-105, for wide angle and the sharpness with the aperture wide open. Yet I can't figure out the upgrade replacement for 100-300APO. It seems that, optically, 80-200G or 70-200G is the only choice for me, but they are heavy and the costs are much too high. :( |
| brettania#2199 date: Apr-23-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | 70-200 SSM 100-300 non Apo |
| price paid: | NZ$280 |
| positive: | Very sharp at f8 and on. Believe this is underated. Very good performer, light and easy to use. |
| negative: | Some pople find zoom creep, but not me as my lens was cleaned, colimated and tightened. f4.5-5.6 can be too slow. |
| comment: | Highly commended, and if you can find one at a good price, don't hesitate. |
| Station53#2198 date: Apr-23-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Light. Very sharp. |
| negative: | Zoom creep |
| comment: | This lens was a gift so I don't know what it cost. It is very sharp. The anti-shake makes this lens sharper than my film camera. |
| hotwire#1769 date: Feb-7-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | $300 CAD |
| positive: | Lightweight Great Image Quality |
| negative: | Zoom Creep So light, i'm afraid I'll break it. |
| comment: | Overall a fine lens, but I didn't seem to use it enough, especially with the 70-200G added to my camera bag. |
| mudslinger#1535 date: Dec-12-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 75-300/4.5-5.6 II Minolta 100-200/4.5 Minolta 80-200/2.8 HS |
| price paid: | $320 (used) |
| positive: | - Compact and Lightweight - Excellent colors - Sharp Outdoors |
| negative: | - AF hunts in low light when using zoom at 250-300mm. |
| comment: | I combine this lens with my 24-105/3.5-4.5 (D) for my ultimate outdoor/travel kit. At F5.6, this zoom is sharp from 100-175mm and 225-300mm and REALLY sharp from 175-225mm. I've used this lens at air shows, boat races and outdoor tennis events with outstanding results. The colors from this lens are beautiful! The 100-200/4.5 at F5.6 is comparable to this lens in sharpness from 100-150mm; however, it does not provide the colors or the zoom range that the 100-300 APO provides. Indoors or under low light situations, the 100-200/4.5 seems to focus faster than the 100-300. I highly recommend the 100-300 APO, even if you already own the 100-200/4.5. In my opinion, if you are going to be using this lens mostly outdoors, then don't even bother with the "D" version. ** 8/12/08 Update: Having used the Minolta 80-200/2.8 and seeing the higher quality pics a G grade zoom can provide, I reduced the sharpness rating on this lens from 5 to 4.5. However, for non G glass, I concluded the 100-300 APO was the best zoom in the 100-300 range. Having the 80-200/2.8, I found I rarely used the 100-300 anymore; therefore, I no longer own this lens but still highly recommend it. |
| napo#1483 date: Nov-26-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Sharpness , Color, Compact |
| negative: | hunts lot in low light |
| comment: | Nice lens , sharp, beautiful color , compact. Good lens for traveller. Have this lens nearly 8 years and it really has been a good friend on my trips. Can produce excellent images. |
| pedrocr#1308 date: Oct-11-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | 100 Macro 70-210 f/4 |
| price paid: | 90 EUR(used) |
| positive: | - Compact - Light - Good reach |
| negative: | - Not too sharp - Not particularly well built |
| comment: | I got a real bargain on this lens on eBay and I probably didn't get a very good version of it. I rarely use it since the 70-210/4 seems so much contrasty and sharp. I only use it when I need the range and I haven't been very impressed with the results. It's probably a bellow-par one. |
| alphadog#1293 date: Oct-8-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | 70-210 4 beercan 100-200 4.5 Sigma 400 5.6 APO |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | compact lightweight sharp |
| negative: | slow AF |
| comment: | I think this is a great compact tele zoom. It is much smaller and lighter than the beercan, and to my eye sharper too at around 200mm and f5.6. This lens is also much sharper than the Sigma 400 APO at f5.6. No, it probably isn't as sharp as the minolta 200 or 300, or even the G zoom (I haven't actually used any), but it is a lot more portable (not to mention affordable). I hope to pair it with a CZ 16-80 (assuming good reviews) to give big zoom range in an easily carried, compact, two lens package. |
| Thesian#1208 date: Sep-20-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | 85/1.4G(D), 135/2.8, 70-210/4, Sigma 500/7.2 and others |
| price paid: | 210 Euro (used) |
| positive: | - sharp - compact - free of chromatic aberations/purple fringes - autofocus quite fast |
| negative: | - extending lens barrel - hood a little short, attachement to extendium barrel makes transport tedious - autofocus hunts, especially in low light |
| comment: | I like this lens for the great image quality it produces and it's small size and little weight. It's sharp enough to be used with a cheap Kenko 1,5x tele-converter and still produce sharp images. With converter autofocus is limited to center focus point with areas of strong contrast and is also quite slow. It does work, however, and stopped down to about 8 (11 with converter), the images are still surprisingly sharp. Not G quality, but perfectly usable. |
| DavidBo#1141 date: Aug-30-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Sharp from f/5,6 |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | Compared to 70-200G it has no chance. The 70-200G are just classes bettter. But i guess they are not comparable. |
| Jose de Luna#1002 date: Jul-8-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | A very compact tele-zoom lens, doesn't really add much weight and space in your bag. Very good sharpness and color rendition across the focal range. |
| negative: | Build quality not as sturdy compared to Minolta's older generation lenses. Tends to focus-hunt at the 300mm setting in difficult lighting and low-contrast scenes. |
| comment: | This compact tele-zoom lens proves to be an excellent substitute for the G-category Minolta lenses; if you know how to control your exposure and shooting techniques, you will be rewarded well in using this lens. At f5.6 300mm ISO400 1/250s anti-shake on and pre-focussing technique applied, I can perfectly capture horses/horseriders in their best jumps. |
rating summary
- total reviews: 69
- sharpness: 4.20
- color: 4.58
- build: 4.00
- distortion: 4.51
- flare control: 4.26
- overall: 4.31
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login